Stomach AcidityCARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomachOMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomachHERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomachHUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

Stomach CapacityCARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tractOMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tractHERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tractHUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

Length of Small IntestineCARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body lengthOMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body lengthHERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body lengthHUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length

ColonCARNIVORE: Simple, short and smoothOMNIVORE: Simple, short and smoothHERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculatedHUMAN: Long, sacculated

Human mouths have evolved over time as can be evident by the stereotypical image as well as fossil record evidence of prehistoric man with a large jaw and large teeth. Around the same time humans learned to control fire, the fossil record shows the shrinkage of tooth size and mouth size. Cooked meat is easier to digest, (as are cooked plants, many of which were indigestible or poisonous before) so the mouth began to shrink; this process hasn't been fully completed which is why wisdom teeth still appear.

Stomach AcidityCARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomachOMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomachHERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomachHUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

According to Holt, Rinehart, and Winston's Modern Biology, page 42, the human stomach has a pH level of 2.

Stomach CapacityCARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tractOMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tractHERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tractHUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

While this may be true, it would seem that an omnivore would have a difficult time digesting plant material without first cooking it. In fact humans cannot eat many types of food that other herbivores can such as tree leaves, grass, naturally occurring raw potatoes, and bamboo, etc. The point you seem to be making is that large stomach capacity is better for meat and a smaller one is better for plants. For this to be true humans should be able to eat more raw plant than other herbivores but in reality they cannot.

Length of Small IntestineCARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body lengthOMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body lengthHERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body lengthHUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length

On average the human small intestine is around 25 feet. The average human is between 5 feet and 6 feet tall. The average man is 5'9''. In the equation 25/5.75=4.35 you can see that humans are actually in the range of carnivore and omnivore.

ColonCARNIVORE: Simple, short and smoothOMNIVORE: Simple, short and smoothHERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculatedHUMAN: Long, sacculated

This picture shows the size of both a carnivore's colon and an herbivore's. This one shows an humans which one can see is shorter than an hebivore's but longer than a carnivore's which would be expected of an omnivore that is in between.

For humans to prosper they evolved their brains and use of tools. You can experience many examples of this by throwing a stone. You ball and joint sockets allow you to pull your arm back and throw the stone forward; thumbs allow you to grasp the stone; hand eye coordination allows you to throw accurately for the most part. No other animal except our closest relatives can achieve this. Humans use tools to hunt and kill animals and also to grow and collect plants.

On top of this chimpanzees, out closest relatives, who are free from our social stigma, religious laws, cultural norms and trends, and mindset, eat meat. In fact female chimpanzees will prostitute themselves for the sole reason of getting meat.

So yes I am sure. Humans have evolved to be omnivores; the reason we eat meat is because our bodies, as our ancestors' did, have become adept to it. Of course it is fine if you want to be vegetarian but for humans it is technically unnatural and almost impossible if we lose the botanical variety that modern society delivers.

Oh yeah, don't copy and paste without credit.

Native: English (NW American)Advanced: Spanish Intermediate: French Beginning: Arabic (MSA/Egyptian) Some day: German

What you posted is not new to me. I have read similar many times before.

But it is all of a "prophetic" approach to the matter: we can eat meat therefore we should eat meat, otherwise why would we be able to?

An "actualistic" approach would be: what does meat consumption do to our bodies?

Sure, we can eat meat, but we can also not eat meat at all and live long and healthy lives, without any modern supplements or industrialized food. With this in mind the choice of eating meat is a philosophical one, not a biological one. The question is: should we continue with this despotism? Are we really that shallow that we treat other living creatures as objects for our 5 minute of enjoyment?

dtp883 wrote:Oh, and if you're a vegetarian for ethical or religious reasons, which is perfectly fine, please do not try to rationalise vegetarianism with nature and anatomy. Let those reasons be your reasons.

Ok, regardless of the fact I consider eating meat to be greatly unhealthy I won't bring that up.

Delodephius wrote:What you posted is not new to me. I have read similar many times before.

But it is all of a "prophetic" approach to the matter: we can eat meat therefore we should eat meat, otherwise why would we be able to?

Then why post it? It's not like I'm lying. And the question was, am I sure that nature intended us to eat meat. Since our bodies have been made to eat meat whether we like it or not nature intends for us to.

Sure, we can eat meat, but we can also not eat meat at all and live long and healthy lives, without any modern supplements or industrialized food.With this in mind the choice of eating meat is a philosophical one, not a biological one.

I don't believe that is entirely true. Except for a few types of plants you would need a large of variety of plants to have a healthy diet. A diet that would need more land than possible to sufficiently sustain the current world population.If it's not a biological question why post that entire list of biological reasons?

Oh yeah, don't copy and paste without credit.

I don't remember who wrote that, I don't really care either.

It's important to at least acknowledge that something is not entirely yours.

Ok, regardless of the fact I consider eating meat to be greatly unhealthy I won't bring that up.

That's a huge generalisation to make. You can live a lot longer on only beef than you can on only broccoli. A pound of a single meat can sustain you longer than a pound of a single plant. If you are referring to fat content and cholestoral, many types of meat are low or lack those such as fish and skinless poultry.

Anyway, it's okay to be vegetarian for ethical reasons.

Native: English (NW American)Advanced: Spanish Intermediate: French Beginning: Arabic (MSA/Egyptian) Some day: German

Since our bodies have been made to eat meat whether we like it or not nature intends for us to.

I reason we can eat meat to survive in cases of greatly dire situations. Otherwise we don't need to. It's like a safety belt.

Then why post it?

I post a lot of things. I don't always (well, to be honest, I mostly don't) think before I post or care later about what I posted when I realize I didn't think about it. In a nutshell: I make a lot of mistakes because I don't think, and when I realize I made a mistake I forget about it. So don't bother asking me why I posted something if it is contradictory to what I am saying now.

A diet that would need more land than possible to sufficiently sustain the current world population.

Actually, we would need less land. Being a farmer I know that meat production takes up more land for growing food for cattle than growing the same amount of food you get from cattle, like more than half of it. We have pigs and a single pig eats more in a day than a human. Hell, when we had a bull he could eat three buckets of grain in a day. Now if you feed them for a year as is usually done, you could survive of that one pig for a year, if you eat nothing but that pig and the food from your garden of course, because that's direct food. Grains in the fields go to the pigs. All in all, if you ate those plants directly without the medium of a pig, cow or a chicken, you would save a lot of money and land. Hence why a kilo of corn costs 10 dinars, a kilo of flour 25 dinars, and a kilo of pork 500 dinars (I checked to be sure).

Last edited by Delodephius on Sat 28 Nov 2009 2:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

About the safety belt, I'm not so sure. My friend who has been a vegetarian for more than 75% of her life accidentally ate a turkey sandwich (not all of it once she realised, obviously) and after that she threw up twice and was sick the rest of the day. I'm sure some would say it's repulsion but it's more likely her body's inexperience with dealing with meat.

You do make an excellent question, why kill and eat an animal for five minutes of enjoyment when modern society makes it possible not to do so. The part "for five minutes of enjoyment" is what really made me think. That is one of the best arguments I think I've ever heard for vegetarianism.

Native: English (NW American)Advanced: Spanish Intermediate: French Beginning: Arabic (MSA/Egyptian) Some day: German